But perhaps more important and far-reaching in its implications for the future of national politics in the US, is not Ron Paul’s delegate count, but the fact that his supporters are successfully taking over the Republican Party district by district, county by county, state by state. That the fiercely independent Republican congressman from Texas might still have a tiny chance at winning his party’s nomination, while interesting, is less important than what he will most certainly have succeeded at doing: Ron Paul has built a political machine.

Judging by recent events in state and local GOP conventions across the country, it may not be at all presumptuous for Ron Paul’s supporters to call their burgeoning movement a revolution.

In Iowa, it is no exaggeration to say that Ron Paul’s people have taken over the GOP. After a stunning coup on April 21st, the new Iowa GOP state central committee now has six members who have publicly expressed support for Ron Paul’s candidacy– and that includes the new state chair of the Iowa Republican Party, A. J. Spiker, the former vice chairman for Ron Paul’s Iowa campaign! Think about that. This is major news. It signals a sea change in the Republican Party. We are now living in a world where the head of the Republican Party of Iowa is a Ron Paul supporter.

And it’s not just Iowa, though Iowa is especially significant because of its prominent role in the national primary process. Ron Paul’s supporters are taking over the Republican Party everywhere. This weekend during the April 28th district conventions, Ron Paul supporters also took over the GOP in Louisiana, with not a bare majority, but a whopping 74% of the delegates to Louisiana’s state convention in June. You can bet they’ll show up and you can bet they’ll elect their own to positions of leadership in the state GOP.

It’s the same story in Alaska, where the Ron Paul movement took over the Republican Party’s state convention on Saturday, and elected two Ron Paul supporters to the positions of state chair and co-chair, Russ Millete and Debbie Holland-Brown, respectively. Even in Mitt Romney’s own home state of Massachusetts, Ron Paul’s movement swept the state’s district conventions Saturday, and stacked the slate of delegates bound to vote for Romney on the first ballot in Tampa with activists who will vote for Ron Paul on the second ballot if there’s a brokered convention.

Looking back further to mid-April, Paul’s supporters also dominated conventions in Minnesota and made a strong showing in Colorado. Looking ahead, Paul’s supporters are poised to continue repeating their successful takeover strategy at the Nevada State GOP’s convention this weekend, and careful observers should look out for more possible surprises in the upcoming Texas and California processes, especially with the likelihood of Newt Gingrich’s withdrawal from the race, leaving Ron Paul as the only alternative to an electorate that is hardly enamored with Mitt Romney.

Again, the bigger story here is not Ron Paul’s chances at winning his party’s nomination, but his supporters’ marked success at winning control over the party apparatus itself.

Yes, I equate taking over leadership positions in the party as taking over the GOP. No doubt, the establishment will hit back, and no doubt people like you will post about it, but not dirty your hands by actually getting involved yourself.

So what do you Paul folks attribute his abysmal performance in this race to?

He supposedly raised a lot of money. Literally everyone, even joke candidates like Cain had their moment as the not-Romney leader. Gingrich even led for a moment despite being a detestable person and a non-starter as a candidate. Why did these voters, who seemed to be searching for anybody but Romney, not give Paul a sniff?

Was it his debate performances? Inept campaign? Or could it be that his views really are radical and/or fringe?

Yes, I equate taking over leadership positions in the party as taking over the GOP. No doubt, the establishment will hit back, and no doubt people like you will post about it, but not dirty your hands by actually getting involved yourself.

I'm pretty sure that there are still 50 states. Perhaps you should hold off declaring a take over until a few more state leadership positions are over-thrown?

__________________I think the young people enjoy it when I "get down," verbally, don't you?

So what do you Paul folks attribute his abysmal performance in this race to?

He supposedly raised a lot of money. Literally everyone, even joke candidates like Cain had their moment as the not-Romney leader. Gingrich even led for a moment despite being a detestable person and a non-starter as a candidate. Why did these voters, who seemed to be searching for anybody but Romney, not give Paul a sniff?

Was it his debate performances? Inept campaign? Or could it be that his views really are radical and/or fringe?

It's the media's fault.

__________________I think the young people enjoy it when I "get down," verbally, don't you?

I'm pretty sure that there are still 50 states. Perhaps you should hold off declaring a take over until a few more state leadership positions are over-thrown?

You're not so very bright. You understand the difference between a work in progress, and a finished product, no? Read the thread title. This is about a civil war currently underway, not something that is finished and done with. I understand though - in the day of instant oatmeal, it's hard for the simple folk to grasp more complex political realities.

You're not so very bright. You understand the difference between a work in progress, and a finished product, no? Read the thread title. This is about a civil war currently underway, not something that is finished and done with. I understand though - in the day of instant oatmeal, it's hard for the simple folk to grasp more complex political realities.

Look, it's fine if you think that Paul followers will take over the GOP. It's laughable, but just peachy. Please keep us all up-to-date on the progress of the revolution, okay?

__________________I think the young people enjoy it when I "get down," verbally, don't you?

What I am driving at is, one barrier to anyone listening to their ideas is that after 1 minute you can tell that they carry at least one very large disconnect from reality, that being their idea of how popular their guy is. They seem to believe that they really are a majority despite all election results. We have been through this twice now and Paul was probably more successful as a candidate last time.

What's the problem with supporting an unpopular idea? Why do you shriek at the idea the person you support might just genuinely not be popular with the general public?

We have been used to the left saying for ages that the problem is that most people are stupid, and if they were smarter they'd support liberals. At least they apprehend that they truly are unpopular with about 50% of the world. Paul appears to be the favored candidate of about 5% of one of the two parties, so perhaps 2.5% of the public. So what's the big deal about acknowledging that most people don't agree with you?

I'm pretty sure that there are still 50 states. Perhaps you should hold off declaring a take over until a few more state leadership positions are over-thrown?

I'll give you this much: I'm with you in hoping this youth movement fails, and the aging, decripit baby-boomer core of the Republican party manages to push the movement outside of the Republican party and into a third party unto itself.

Unfortunately for my hopes, that doesn't appear to be happening, though. There is too much progress being made from within the Republican party.

We have been through this twice now and Paul was probably more successful as a candidate last time.

I'm amused that you actually think this. It goes to show how disconnected from reality you actually are. You should check the results if you believe this. Ron Paul has more than doubled his results in every state he's been in since 2008.